Hobbes Against Civil Disobedience

The peaceful resistance to laws that this essay discusses assumes that the system, one of Western liberal democracy, is ultimately the best for the United States. The protesting discussed in this essay does not seek to dismantle the liberal democracy and instate any number of alternatives, from fascism to communism. It instead strives to make the government adhere to the principles of the Constitution, to better represent the people; protesting against laws is a check on the fallibility of the members of the government. In The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes argues that the social contract between man and government allows man to exit the state of nature and enter the state of law. Each man comprises the body of the Leviathan, with only the head
being independent. If the foot of this body falls asleep, i.e. part of the people are no longer satisfied by the state and do not want to be under the control of the state, then the state must reconfigure itself to once again satisfy the needs of the people. This does not threaten the integrity of the Leviathan itself, but it forces the state to change in some minute way, change a law or two, to satisfy the people again. While Hobbes was a monarchist, and the United States is most definitely not a monarchy, this concept of the Leviathan applies to the United States.
If one assumes that there is no need to protest and protesting inherently negatively impacts a free society, then there is a presumption of infallibility of the government.
One presumes that the state and federal governments perfectly channel what their constituents desire and know what is best. Our democracy rests upon the assumption that no human knows what is best for the nation without the influence of that nation. By resisting against laws, we remind our representatives of our needs in a direct, loud way. Robert Goldwin in “The Case Against Civil Disobedience”, argues that civil disobedience is ultimately ineffectual, that it is impossible to change a system from within. It is true that peaceful resistance to laws is ultimately not concerned with radically changing the system, but protesting laws that are at discord with the principles of the
system. At every point in American history, there is an almost ironic outcry against protesting. The protesting is of all kinds: cries to dismantle the system in its entirety, cries for incremental changes that swell into a revolutionary fire to dismantle the system, and simply cries for incremental changes to laws, social norms. The United States comes from a protest: the Boston Tea Party, and that too faced assurances that the protestors were too dramatic and selfish, that the (British) government is ultimately right. It is thanks to the people that argued that the British state no longer represented what the American nation wanted, that we have a United States of America. We have seen peaceful and violent resistance to the racism of Jim Crow and institutionalized segregation throughout the 20th century and 21st century. Thanks to those who were not complacent with the flaws of the laws the United States is more equal and more free than it was at its conception. As I write this, there are thousands protesting President Trump’s Executive Order limiting immigration and travel, arguing that it does not reflect the principles of this nation and is morally and legally wrong. These protestors form a check against the executive branch and both advance and showcase the freedom of American society. Protests are the enemy of every totalitarian dictator, and in oppressive countries, protesting is often illegal.
In the Soviet Union, speaking out against the system was uncommon at best. In Egypt, there are laws prohibiting protesting, which ironically people protest. These societies are far from free; these governments assume they have the consent of the people to do anything, or otherwise do not care at all. If the people do not have any say whatsoever in how they are governed, then they do not live in a free society. The foundation of our free society is delineated in the Constitution, from the right to practice any religion, to the right of assembly and free press. Protests remind us of our commitment to the principles the Constitution espouses, it forces our representatives to reconsider whether the laws they have made and will make truly uphold this image of the society we want. Protesting does not just positively impact a free society, it is the essence of free
society.